horrido27

Depends on which sides Lawyer you ask?!

But the fact is... the language states
Section 13

"if the parties have not reached a tentative agreement on a JCBA by that date."

It doesn't say "If the parties have not agreed upon the Tentative Agreement" nor does it say "In the event of a TA failing to be ratified"..This is probably a hole in the TPA that was missed. It will probably lead to the company trying to go to Court stating the "intent" was otherwise. Either way, With a NO Vote the Company still has to deal with us. And the Company (especially Jeffrey and the Upper Management Team) still has to deal with a falling stock price and low Pilot moral.
[I believe that once this fails, Jeffrey is gone because He Has Failed]

The only real question is what the company does based on the level of TA Failure Vote.
A narrow margin failure will probably see the company reengage (ala AMR/APA) within a month or two and just throw some money to both the Payrates and the Retro/Signing bonus. I'd expect we'd see DAL- a few dollars. And a 10% increase to the amount...
(Still would be a NO Vote to me.. but probably would get enough NO'ers to change to YES to make it pass)
A larger margin means the above PLUS contract language fixes.

Just my opinion.
Motch

Coach67

This was written in the negative which is why the Company missed it ... it states that the "Airline Parties" which is management, may terminate the outlined sections IF "the parties have not reached a tentative agreement on a JCBA by that date."

There was a tentative agreement reached which means the "Airline Parties" which is management , CAN NOT terminate the outlined sections. If the Company wanted to tighten this down they should have used the phrase "ratified agreement" INSTEAD of using the phrase "reached a tentative agreement."

Heppner in his last sales job to the pilots is trying to play the fear card to get a "yes" vote. If he comes out and difinitively says otherwise ... he is subject to a DFR lawsuit.

UalHvy

Latest UAL MEC letter:

Question 1: Now that the MEC has reached a tentative agreement with the company, the protections in the Transition & Process Agreement (TPA) no longer have an expiration date. The parties HAVE reached a tentative agreement, thus these provisions no longer expire.

Answer 1: It would be a mistake to rely on that argument as a reason to turn down the TA. In labor contract arbitrations, not only the contract language (even if it seems plain) but also the parties’ discussions and intent are given significant weight. During the original TPA negotiations, the company insisted on a “ratified JCBA” by December 31, 2011 if they were going to maintain the TPA protections. The JNC understood that this would reduce the time required to obtain a Tentative Agreement and allow time for the MEC and Pilot ratification processes, and so it would reduce the time that the protections would be in place. Hence the change was agreed to “tentative agreement on a JCBA by that date” so as to allow a reasonable time for the ratification process and to keep the protections in place a little longer if necessary. It was not meant as a means to negotiate a tentative agreement for the sake of keeping the protections alive indefinitely. The TPA Extension was a repeat of the same language with the date changed to March 31, 2013. This provision was briefed in detail to the MEC multiple times, including July 2010 when it was ratified by the MEC.

The idea that this misrepresentation is being propagated by at least two former stewards of the MEC who knew of the negotiations of this provision is irresponsible

UalHvy

Also....if we have voted it down...then we no longer have an agreement.

Coach67

It doesn't say a current Tentative Agreement ... it says reached a tentative agreement by that date. We've reached a tentative agreement.

Do you really think an arbitrator would say ... "Oh Ok I see what you are saying ... you meant to say 'reached a ratified agreement' OK well then Doug McKeen ... aren't you a lawyer ... is that the best contract language you can write if that's really what you meant."

If you really want the straight answer ... ask Jay Heppner if he meant a "ratified agreement" or "reached a tentative agreement." If he says his intent was "reached a tentative agreement" then we have a disagreement between the two parties which will be an expdited arbitration with a decision within seven days of the hearing as per Section 12-A of the T&PA. If Heppner sides with the Company and says his intent was "reached a ratified agreement" then he is subject to a DFR lawsuit.

So Heppner can only use the gray area as a fear tactic to get his POS JCBA ratified.

I'm not voting "NO" because of the language in the T&PA that doesn't expire, I'm voting "NO" because it's a POS JCBA TA and I WILL NOT vote out of fear!

Pilotbiffster

Read the MEC FAQ on this:
Question 1: Now that the MEC has reached a tentative agreement with the company, the protections in the Transition & Process Agreement (TPA) no longer have an expiration date. The parties HAVE reached a tentative agreement, thus these provisions no longer expire.



Answer 1: It would be a mistake to rely on that argument as a reason to turn down the TA. In labor contract arbitrations, not only the contract language (even if it seems plain) but also the parties’ discussions and intent are given significant weight. During the original TPA negotiations, the company insisted on a “ratified JCBA” by December 31, 2011 if they were going to maintain the TPA protections. The JNC understood that this would reduce the time required to obtain a Tentative Agreement and allow time for the MEC and Pilot ratification processes, and so it would reduce the time that the protections would be in place. Hence the change was agreed to “tentative agreement on a JCBA by that date” so as to allow a reasonable time for the ratification process and to keep the protections in place a little longer if necessary. It was not meant as a means to negotiate a tentative agreement for the sake of keeping the protections alive indefinitely. The TPA Extension was a repeat of the same language with the date changed to March 31, 2013. This provision was briefed in detail to the MEC multiple times, including July 2010 when it was ratified by the MEC.



The idea that this misrepresentation is being propagated by at least two former stewards of the MEC who knew of the negotiations of this provision is irresponsible

Coach67

Read the answer carefully! The answer says that it would " be a mistake to rely on that argument as a reason to turn down the TA."

It doesn't say that is a misrepresentation and it doesn't deny the language. If they came out and said, that's flat out wrong and we negotiated the language and that's not what we meant .... then OK. But they clouded there remarks with obfuscation.

There are many "reasons to turn down the TA." The post just points out the reason to not be afraid of the scare tactics being used by the UAL-MEC to get a "yes" vote!

The guys in 1985 didn't vote out of fear and they got rid of the B-Scale. I won't vote out of fear either even if it's my own MEC trying to use fear tactics!

Coach67

This is for those that are interested in propagating fear AND for those that want the facts:

Here are the pertinent lines,
"if the parties have not reached a tentative agreement on a JCBA by that date."

It doesn't say have a TA on that date. It says "by that date." It also doesn't say a ratified TA or a JCBA.

But guess what ... it is differentiated in another section of the TPA that contains the following statement:
If at any time the JNCs reach a tentative JCBA but it fails to be approved, ratified or executed under ALPA procedures, the Parties will apply for or resume the NMB’s mediatory services, unless they agree not to do so.

So clearly the parties differentiated between reaching a TA for the purposes of the expiration clauses, AND one that fails to be approved, ratified and executed to reengage the NMB. There were no such qualifiers put on the terminable provision clause.

So if there are still those trying to propagate fear … their points are baseless. The parties wouldn't articulate it one way in one section of the T&PA and another way with ratified language / failed TA in another part of the T&PA unless there was meant for a clear distinction. In this case, the actual language supports the fact that the terminable provisions do not terminate because there was a TA reached "by that date.”

The idea that this misrepresentation of expiring provisions being propagated by the MEC to place fear in those that would vote NO is the thing that is irresponsible! Not the former stewards of the Association who are pointing out the facts to assuage some fear!

No one is attempting to convince you to vote yes or no ... just however you vote ... don't fall into the vote for fear trap!

Horhay

Please stop with this type of conjecture; it isn't based in fact and until you can cite a valid source, I urge that you cease and desist from promulgating myth vs. fact regarding this specific subject matter.

There is enough fear paralyzing the UAL pilot group at this point. Lets let cooler heads prevail by tabling this discussion until a VALID disposition of this question be rendered.

The consequences of "getting this wrong" are too far-reaching and this (collective) decision should be based in fact, not fear and folly. My 2 cents from a former UAL and current CAL guy.

Cheers,
Horhay

gettinbumped

You've chose THAT one post to urge a "cease and desist"???? This whole FORUM is riddled with the cancer of people stating their opinion as fact. The simple truth is that NO ONE knows what will happen to the TPA with a 'No' vote. Not even the lawyers, though they have an idea.

Here is what we KNOW. L-UAL has no 737-900ER simulators. They have no 737-900ER instructors, and they have no 737-900ER syllabus. The first airplanes arrive in August, and coincide with the L-UAL 757's being parked. There is simply NO WAY that L-UAL can fly those airplanes in August UNLESS there is a JCBA and SLI so that current CAL facilities and instructors can be used. L-UAL announced recalls, and then promptly shelved them. Waiting for..... What? So what's UAL to do if the TA is turned down?

They could:

1) RACE to get a new TA ratified IMMEDIATELY
2) Tell Boeing they can't take the airplanes
3) Contend that since we turned the TA down, there IS no TA and that the TPA should be allowed to expire.
a) Would they win that argument?
b) Would the CAL MC agree and join the company in arguing the TPA
should expire, thus allowing them to take the airplanes, hire
pilots, while L-UAL furloughs pilots with the parking 757's, thus continuing to attempt to improve their position in the SLI argument?
4) Act as if the TPA expired and tell us to grieve it if we don't like it.

I've seen enough of recent past history to have an opinion of what would happen. But my opinion isn't worth any more than anyone else's on here.

Like it or not, the simple fact remains that NO ONE knows what will happen in this scenario, and there are risks that we would all be smart to consider. This TA does not exist in a vacuum, despite all the cries to "vote on the TA ONLY on it's merits, considering NOTHING else". I liken that to showing up in ops, sitting down with the paperwork to find that an engine generator is inop. You are going to Reno, and it's night time and snowing, but you tell the F/O, we are ONLY going to consider this flight on the legality of the MEL, consider NO other outside risks. Assessing risks is what we as pilots are paid to do.